Dixon v. Blackwell
298 P.3d 185
Alaska2013Background
- Dixon was injured in an automobile collision on February 14, 2006 when Blackwell ran a red light; Blackwell admitted liability.
- Dixon's medical expenses related to the accident totaled about $196,208.72; State Farm paid $29,699.24 under medical payments coverage and denied the rest as unrelated.
- Dixon sought arbitration with State Farm but later withdrew that arbitration and proceeded in superior court against Blackwell.
- Blackwell served a Rule 68 offer on November 29, 2007 to allow entry of judgment for $28,878.83 plus costs, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and to assume the State Farm medical payments lien; the offer would dismiss the case with prejudice.
- The jury trial in January 2011 awarded Dixon $12,710 for past medical expenses and $4,000 for past non-economic losses; Blackwell later sought attorney’s fees per Rule 68.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the verdict adequate? | Dixon contends the verdict was inadequate based on admitted causation of some medical expenses. | Blackwell argues the verdict was supported by the evidence and not miscarried. | Verdict was adequate; no miscarriage of justice established. |
| Was the Rule 68 offer valid? | Dixon challenges the timing and structure of the offer as premature or questionable under Rule 68. | Blackwell argues the offer complied with Rule 68 and was not premature or defective. | Offer was valid. |
| Did Dixon beat the offer under Rule 68? | Dixon argues her net recovery, considering liens and waivers, exceeded the offer. | Blackwell argues the net recovery did not beat the offer under Rule 68. | Dixon did not beat the offer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Xerox Corp., 116 P.3d 592 (Alaska 2005) (judicial admissions must be clear and unequivocal to bind)
- Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010) (offers may be made more than 10 days before trial; timing discussed with Rule 26 disclosures)
- Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 234 P.3d 1290 (Alaska 2010) (ten-dollar offers at outset invalid; not advancing settlement)
- Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1178 (Alaska 2009) (one-dollar offers invalid as tactical; not advancing Rule 68 purposes)
- Sayer v. Bashaw, 267 P.3d 1151 (Alaska 2011) (entry-of-judgment requirement for valid Rule 68 offer)
- ASRC Energy Servs. & Power Commc'n, LLC v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n, 267 P.3d 1151 (Alaska 2011) (offer to pay contingent on dismissal with prejudice invalid; analysis on offer to allow entry)
- Ruggles ex rel. Estate of Mayer v. Grow, 984 P.2d 509 (Alaska 1999) (insurer subrogation rules regarding enforceability of subrogated claims)
- Jackman v. Jewel Lake Villa, 170 P.3d 173 (Alaska 2007) (use of term 'new money' in Rule 68 context)